He says on Page 15 that Eastern Orthodoxy started out well. He speculates from what happened in Acts chapter 2:10 that many Jewish converts went back to their homelands and converted other Jews into the Christian Faith. He then fantasizes about how glorious and wonderful the Church and it’s pastors were. However, he has no documentation for this. He just declares it and expects us to take his word for it.

He goes on to talk about how hostile the early Egyptian Church was to Pagan philosophy. He quotes Dr. Frend, the professor of Church history at the University of Glasgow to support his argument that the early Egyptian Church was against pagan philosophy. However, neither the New Testament nor the Apostolic Fathers that he quotes say anything about Christianity in Egypt.

He talks about how 1st Clement never quoted any Stoic writer to supprt his convictions about the Stability of the Universe, but clement wasn’t in Egypt. He was in the West. And just because someone makes use of Pagan philosophy, that doesn’t mean they agree with everything the philosopher said. A prime example of this is Saint Paul in Acts Chapter 17 when he quotes Aratus.

NKJVActs 17:28'For in him we live and move and have our being.' As some of your own poets have said, 'We are his offspring.'

He mentions Polycarp who was the Bishop of Smynia not Egypt, and his pupil Irenaeus moved to Gaul(modern day France). Non of this tells us about early Egyptian Christianity.

On page 16 Morey continues with the idea that the Egyptian Jewish Church eventually attracted gentile converts. Eventhough he is talking about early Eastern Orthodoxy he makes it seem as if the "PARISH" was like some sort of Baptist congregational Church with the repetitive use of words like “the pastor” or “the Jewish pastors”. He mentions how the Jewish pastors were thrilled to have gentile converts. I wonder where Morey got this from? Did he invent this from thin air? How does he know they were happy at first?

Whatever the case, this is where his conspiracy theory begins. He develops the plot of gentiles taking over the leadership of the Church and kicking Jewish Christians out. He says the Gentile Egyptian Church persecuted the Jewish wing as a sect.

He quotes Dr. Frend again to prove this point. However, the quote he gives is ambiguous. Frend mentions how in the 2nd century there were many Christians who were nonconformist Jews. In this quote he shows the enmity between Orthodox(nonbelieving) Jews and christian Jews. He mentions the essenes, but it is unclear what he is trying to say. The quote ends with the mention of an active Jewish Christianity by the year 190 that has been reduced to a sect.

From my recollection the Ebionites were the Jewish community that were called a sect by Early Chistians. And I doubt if Morey wants to be associated with them. It would seem more likely that Jewish Christianity merged with it’s gentile counterpart. Jewish believers and Gentile believers eventually intermarried. If one looks at how Orthodox(nonbelieving) Jews worship in the synagogue with how Orthodox Christians worship in the churches. Then one will see a strong continuity of thought, ritual, and custom. Morey tries to use Dr. Frend to support his theory of the fall of Jewish Christianity in Egypt, but from the look of his quotes I doubt if Frend was talking about Egypt at all.

Any student of Church history will know that most sects and heretical groups lived side by side with the Orthodox Church. Most heretical groups were persecuted after 380 A.D. and even with that it took centuries. And it wasn’t done by the Church. It was done by the State.

On page 17 he asserts that the political rule of the Church was total. That’s not accurate.He exaggerates the political arm of the state over the Church. It was the Church that eventually made the state close down the gladiatorial games. It was the laity of the Church that eventually made the state stop destroying Icons. There were times of peace as well as times of friction between the State and Church.

The rest of chapter 1 Pages 18-21 is gonna take a few days to cover

If I said anything that was wrong or not 100%ly correct please feel free to correct me.

« Last Edit: February 16, 2008, 11:42:36 PM by jnorm888 »

Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

In Chapter 3 on page 41 he says that the World view of Origen and those who followed him were thoroughly pagan. He speculates that there were no Jewish or Biblical elements in their thinking about Theology, Anthropology and the World. He thinks that Origen succeeded in Hellenizing Christianity.

Origen had Jewish teachers. He spoke to Jews to learn about their Hebrew books and he compiled what was called “the Hexapla”. The Hexapla is what we would call a “parallel Bible” today. It was an Old Testament Bible with both the Greek and Hebrew. He was an avid admirer of Philo. Philo was a Jewish greek philosopher that used Judaic thought with Greek philosophy. If one reads the Gospel of John one will see that Christians made use of Philo’s work. Now even though Origen was declared heretical in the 6th century. He was influenced by Jews and Judaic thought.

This quote from Origen shows that eventhough he respected some greek philosophers he knew that they were foolish.

“We testify of certain Greek philosophers that they knew God, seeing “He manifested Himself to them, although “they did not glorify Him as God, neither were they thankful, but became vain in their imaginations; and professing themselves to be wise, they became foolish.” Origen (248 A.D.)

and Clement of Alexandria who is not called a Saint in the Orthodox church had this to say.

“Well, be it so that “the thieves and robbers” are the philosophies among the greeks, who before the coming of the Lord received fragments of the truth from the Hebrew prophets. They claimed these as their own teaching, without complete understanding of them.” Clement of Alexandria (195 A.D.)

This doesn’t sound like being succumbed by Greek Philosophy to me. Anyone that read Origen and Clement would know that they had a critical eye in this regard.

There were Christians that had knowledge of greek philosophy. Saint Paul had knowledge of it and used it to his advantage. The same with Justin Martyre, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen. ….not to mention a few others. But most Christians of this time didn’t like greek philosophy. Morey refuses to accept the fact that greek philosophy was used to convert the greek pagan world.

If learning about greek philosophy is sinful then John Calvin must be awful since he was a humanist scholar! He was tought Humanism at the University of France and his works is riddled with Aristotelian logic. It is well known that the Protestant Reformation was heavily influenced by the Renaissance, and alot of Baptist churches were influenced by the Enlightenment. But unlike the influence of the Renaissance and the Enlightenment. Orthodoxy never based the foundation of the Faith on greek philosophical thought. So the finger pointing can go both ways. In the end I think it is safe to say that Greek Philosophy has some value. It can be put to some good use.

In Chapter 3 on page 41 he says that the World view of Origen and those who followed him were thoroughly pagan. He speculates that there were no Jewish or Biblical elements in their thinking about Theology, Anthropology and the World. He thinks that Origen succeeded in Hellenizing Christianity.

Origen had Jewish teachers. He spoke to Jews to learn about their Hebrew books and he compiled what was called “the Hexapla”. The Hexapla is what we would call a “parallel Bible” today. It was an Old Testament Bible with both the Greek and Hebrew. He was an avid admirer of Philo. Philo was a Jewish greek philosopher that used Judaic thought with Greek philosophy. If one reads the Gospel of John one will see that Christians made use of Philo’s work. Now even though Origen was declared heretical in the 6th century. He was influenced by Jews and Judaic thought.

This quote from Origen shows that eventhough he respected some greek philosophers he knew that they were foolish.

“We testify of certain Greek philosophers that they knew God, seeing “He manifested Himself to them, although “they did not glorify Him as God, neither were they thankful, but became vain in their imaginations; and professing themselves to be wise, they became foolish.” Origen (248 A.D.)

and Clement of Alexandria who is not called a Saint in the Orthodox church.

“Well, be it so that “the thieves and robbers” are the philosophies among the greeks, who before the coming of the Lord received fragments of the truth from the Hebrew prophets. They claimed these as their own teaching, without complete understanding of them.” Clement of Alexandria (195 A.D.)

This doesn’t sound like being succumbed by Greek Philosophy to me. Anyone that read Origen and Clement would know that they had a critical eye in this regard.

There were Christians that had knowledge of greek philosophy. Saint Paul had knowledge of it and used it to his advantage. The same with Justin Martyre, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen. ….not to mention a few others. But most Christians of this time didn’t like greek philosophy. Morey refuses to accept the fact that greek philosophy was used to convert the greek pagan world.

If learning about greek philosophy is sinful then John Calvin must be awful since he was a humanist scholar! He was tought Humanism at the University of France and his works is riddled with Aristotelian logic. So the finger pointing can go both ways. In the end I think it is right to say that Greek philosophy has some value.

OK, I have sent out another email since the last one went basically unanswered save one person; John Torrey Gilday of our forum is the project manager for this important work. I've sent out a second email. Let's get the ball rolling. If anyone has any comments or wants things to proceed in any certain way please make your suggestion back in the email. Otherwise let's divide up the book and get at it. Who has gone ahead and ordered a copy of this work, etc?

When some reformed protestants say the LXX is corrupt. What they mean is it differs from the MT. The MT is not the original hebrew text type. Infact, there are several different Hebrew text types. The LXX follows a different Hebrew text type and besides, the MT was butchered(edited) in certain parts by nonbelieving jews for theological reasons.

The LXX shouldn't be judged by the MT, because the MT is a post Christian Hebrew text that has been edited and compiled from about 150 A.D. to about 900A.D.

The LXX is a 3rd or 2nd century B.C. Greek Translation of an earlier Hebrew text. And when the dead sea scrolls were found. The LXX cynics were surprized to find out that where the Dead Sea scrolls differed substantialy from the MT it usually agreed with the LXX. Now the LXX and the MT agree in most places, but in some parts they do differ. What we have today is called by scholars the "Hexaplar recension". It is called that because it is a combined text of the hebrew of Origens day along with 5 or 6 greek translations. 3 of which were post christian literal greek translations by nonbelieving Jews that rejected christianity. The LXX had it's own colomn in the Hexaplar. Thus the Hexaplar was what we would call in modern times a Parallel Bible. A couple other recension texts were also around as spoken of by Jerome.

Tertullian speaks about the Hebrew text type that the LXX was based on, which was still in existence in his day.

"That the understanding of their books might not be lacking, this also theJews supplied to ptolemy. For they gave him seventy-two interpreters......Thesame account is given by Aristeas. So the King left these works unlocked to all,in the Greek language. To this day, at the temple of serapis, the libraries ofPtolemy are to be seen, with the identical Hebrew originals in them. The Jews,too, read them publicly." Tertullian(197 A.D.) [1]

[1]page 608 dictionary of early christian beliefs. David Bercot,Hendrickson publishers

The Serapeum temple would have been destroyed around 391 A.D. with the Decree of Theophilus. Just because the Temple was destroyed doesn't mean the books were destroyed with it.

A list of Some Pre-nicene christians that quoted the deutoros

"When you can do good, defer it not, because almsdelivers from death"[tobit 4:10; 12:9]Polycarp 135 A.D.

"Cyrus, King of the Persians, said to Daniel, theprophet, "why do you not worship Bel?" Daniel replied, saying, "Because I do notworship idols made with hands" [Dan. 14, also known as Bel and theDragon]. Irenaeus 180 A.D.

"For that reason, the scripture most strenuouslyexhorts, "Do not introduce everyone into your house, for the snares of thecrafty are many" [Sir 11:29] Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

"Who is this but Christ? They say, "come, let us removethe righteous one, because he is hateful to us; he sets himself contrary to ourdoings" [Wis. 2:12]. Tertullian 207 A.D.

"They are all clearly described in the books of theMaccabees" Hippolytus 205 A.D.

"That we may believe on the authority of the HolyScriptures that such is the case, hear how in the book of Maccabees, where themother of seven martyrs exhorts her sons to endore torture, this truth isconfirmed." Origen 225 A.D.

[2]page 208 A dictionary of early beliefs, David Bercot, Hendricksonpublishers

The Post Nicene christian Saint Athanasius also embraced some of the deuterocanonical books in his 3 class system of books. His 3 tier system of Canonical scripture(which included the books of Baruch, and the letter of Jeremiah), the scripture that is read(the rest of the deutero books), and the uninspired Apocrypha(other books like the Apocalypse of Peter, the Apocalypse of Abraham, the book of Noah, the apocalypse of Adam, Acts of Peter, Ascension of Isaiah.....ect).

And according to Gary G. Michuta in the book "Why Catholic Bibles are Bigger: The untold story of the lost books of the Protestant Bible"(copyright 2007 Published by Grotto Press). He says on page 111

SAAS1st Kingdoms 17:4(1st Samuel 17:4) "And a mighty man went out from thebattle line of the Philistines named Goliath, from Gath. His height was fourcubits and a span."

The MT says

KJV1st Samuel 17:4 "And there went out a champion out of the camp of thePhilistines, named Goliath, of Gath, whose height was six cubits and aspan."

Recent Archeology of the middle eastern region in regards to the ancient tales of giants in that area agrees with the dead sea scrolls and LXX of 4 cubits and a span.

4QGen-k fragment has the longer reading of "and dry land appeared" in its text.

The LXX says

SAASGen 1:9 "Then God said, let the water under heaven be gathered togetherinto one place, and let the dry land appear"; and it was so. The water underheaven was gathered into its places, and the dry land appeared."

The MT says

"9And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto oneplace, and let the dry land appear: and it was so."

This shows the Hebrew that the LXX was based on was very similar to the one of the dead sea scrolls. At least in regards to Genesis.

4Q Exod-a of the DSS says of Exodus 1:5 "75 souls"

The lxx says:

SAAS"All those who were the seed of Jacob were seventy-five persons (forJoseph was in Egypt already)."

The MT says:

KJV"And all the souls that came out of the loins of Jacob were seventy souls:for Joseph was in Egypt already."

The Dead sea scroll fragment agreed with the LXX. Also the New Testament agrees with the LXX.

Acts chapter 7:14 says:

"Then Joseph sent and called his father Jacob and all his relatives to him, seventy-five people."

Steven quoted the LXX, yet some people would like to re-write history and pretent that Jesus and the Apostles didn't make use of the LXX. Also some people would like to pretent that the LXX only had the first five books of Moses. The fact that the New Testament quotes the LXX in other places shows that the LXX had more books in it than just the first 5 books of Moses.

4QDeut-j in Deuteronomy 32:8 agrees with the LXX in that it has "according to the number of the sons of God"

LXX says:

SAAS"When the Most High divided the nations, when He scattered the Sons ofAdam, He set the boundaries of the nations by the number of God's angels"

The MT says

KJV"When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when heseparated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to thenumber of the children of Israel."

The 5/6HevPs of Psalm 22:17 says "They have pierced my hands and feet"

NKJV Luke 4:16-21""So He came to Nazareth, where He had been brought up. And as His customwas, He went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and stood up to read. And Hewas handed the book of the prophet Isaiah. And when He had opened the book, Hefound the place where it was written:

“ The Spirit of the LORD is upon Me,Because He has anointed Me To preach thegospel to the poor; He has sent Me to healthe brokenhearted, To proclaim liberty to thecaptives And recovery of sight to theblind, To set at liberty those who areoppressed; To proclaim the acceptableyear of the LORD.”

Then He closed the book, and gave it back to the attendant andsat down. And the eyes of all who were in the synagogue were fixed on Him. AndHe began to say to them, “Today this Scripture is fulfilled in yourhearing.”"

The LXX says:

Brentons lxx Isaiah 61:1-2"The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me; he has sentme to preach glad tidings to the poor, to heal the broken in heart, to proclaimliberty to the captives, and recovery of sight to the blind; to declarethe acceptable year of the Lord, and the day of recompence; to comfort all thatmourn;"

The MT says

KJV Isaiah 61:1-2""The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed meto preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up thebrokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of theprison to them that are bound;To proclaim the acceptable year ofthe LORD, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all thatmourn;""

You can't really see it in english but Jesus followed the greek of the LXX.

Matthew 1:22-23 says:

NKJV"So all this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by theLord through the prophet, saying: “Behold, the virgin shall be with child, andbear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,” which is translated, “Godwith us.”

Brentons LXX says:

Esaias 7:14"Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; behold, a virgin shallconceive in the womb, and shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his nameEmmanuel."

The MT says

Well. I wasn't able to find a translation that went with the MT. Instead, they all chose to go with the LXX. But the MT says young woman......not virgen. However, there is evidence that the Jews who used the dead sea scrolls did understand that hebrew word in a similar way that the Jewish translaters of the LXX did. So it could have been a common interpretation before the time of Christ as well as during the time of Christ. The MT was edited for hundreds of years after 150 A.D. It is well known that the Jewish nonbelievers edited alot of the Messianic prophecies because of the rise of Christianity, and conversion of their own peoples.

Romans 9:17 says

NKJV"For the Scripture says to the Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth.”"

The LXX of Exodus 9:16 says:Brentons lxx"And for this purpose hast thou been preserved, that I might display in thee my strength, and that my name might be published in all the earth."

The NASB says of Exodus 9:16"But, indeed, for this reason I have allowed you to remain, in order to show you My power and in order to proclaim My name through all the earth."

New Testament

Romans 9:26 NKJV“And it shall come to pass in the place where it was said to them, ‘ You are not My people,’ There they shall be called sons of the living God.”

Old Testament

The SAASHosea 1:10"Yet the Number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which shall not be measured or numbered. Then it shall come to pass in the place where it was said to them, 'You are not my people,' Even then they shall be called the sons of the living God."

The MT says

KJV"Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God."

You can't see it in english but Paul was following the LXX in Romans 9:25-26. The same is true for Romans 9:27; 9:29; and 9:33.

It is well known that the LXX was the Christian Old Testament. Yes you had a few christians from time to time that had their own personal view against the LXX, but over all when pushed came to shove and when big councils gathered. The LXX stayed with the Church. To Judge the LXX with the eyes of the MT is to judge the Old Testament that Christians used for 2,000 years.

JNORM888

« Last Edit: March 09, 2008, 01:30:05 AM by jnorm888 »

Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

I'm pretty much done with my rejoinder of chapters 1 & 3. I responded to a little bit of chapter 2. There are two more things that I would like to respond to in chapters 4 and I think 5 or 6. after that I should be done.

JNORM888

Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

Due to time constraints I cannot read this entire thread but I did peruse the summary of contents of the book being discussed. This book seems to present the view of its advocates that I am saved and you are not which is an ultimate arrogance. While an Orthodox Christian, (as I understand) has the true faith it is not for us to assume other Christians or other people will not have salvation in the eyes of God (and not to preach apocotastasis). The concept of the book is to assume that the church was hijacked within a generation & from this we may conclude that any early Christian testimonies like the epistles of St Ignatius, St Aristedes, St Clement of Rome etc. are not "Biblical." Such a secenario seems to be the setting of a virtual reality game in which you assume you know the Bible and all who have striven to maintain the faith through history are unreal. There is no mention of the great schism or martyrs in the contents and there seems to be a disjointed section on Pr Cyril Lukaris who was murdered by the Ottomans & not Orthodox Christians. The fact that Cyril Lukaris presented the letter of Clement to King Charles I of England who was a high church Anglican I would think not sit well within the framework of this book. Additionally the fact that Charles I was beheaded by Puritan extremists for his "popish" Anglicanism, (not to mention Anglican Archbishop Laud ) I also wonder if it is mentioned. As far as Buddha being a saint, the closest analogy I ever heard was from St Justin the martyr as him being a virtuous pagan that perceded the incarnation of Jesus Christ Lord and Saviour. Personally I have been catechized into the faith where the 10 commndments, the Beatitudes, prayer, fasting, almsgiving, and (most important) the holy Eucharist are paramount from what "Egyptian mystery" are these derived? I thought they were from the Holy Bible. Our Saviour told us to venerate His blessed mother and the fact the wise men saw the Theotokos & Christ child (per Matthew 2:11) & worshipped Him is the most basic premise of illusration in the blessed icons. Forgive me for being too critical but this book seems to be a sham. This is not to say there are Protesant perspectives and critical analyses of Orthodoxy that lack integrity. For ex there is an extended one from an organization founded by Billy Graham which calls for the "need" to "evangelize" the Orthodox but does not denigrate the historical truth of the apostolic churches http://www.lausanne.org/pattaya-1980/lop-19.html So there are points of debate of varying quality obviously. Just my 2 cents from a general layperson.

Due to time constraints I cannot read this entire thread but I did peruse the summary of contents of the book being discussed. This book seems to present the view of its advocates that I am saved and you are not which is an ultimate arrogance. While an Orthodox Christian, (as I understand) has the true faith it is not for us to assume other Christians or other people will not have salvation in the eyes of God (and not to preach apocotastasis). The concept of the book is to assume that the church was hijacked within a generation & from this we may conclude that any early Christian testimonies like the epistles of St Ignatius, St Aristedes, St Clement of Rome etc. are not "Biblical." Such a secenario seems to be the setting of a virtual reality game in which you assume you know the Bible and all who have striven to maintain the faith through history are unreal. There is no mention of the great schism or martyrs in the contents and there seems to be a disjointed section on Pr Cyril Lukaris who was murdered by the Ottomans & not Orthodox Christians. The fact that Cyril Lukaris presented the letter of Clement to King Charles I of England who was a high church Anglican I would think not sit well within the framework of this book. Additionally the fact that Charles I was beheaded by Puritan extremists for his "popish" Anglicanism, (not to mention Anglican Archbishop Laud ) I also wonder if it is mentioned. As far as Buddha being a saint, the closest analogy I ever heard was from St Justin the martyr as him being a virtuous pagan that perceded the incarnation of Jesus Christ Lord and Saviour. Personally I have been catechized into the faith where the 10 commndments, the Beatitudes, prayer, fasting, almsgiving, and (most important) the holy Eucharist are paramount from what "Egyptian mystery" are these derived? I thought they were from the Holy Bible. Our Saviour told us to venerate His blessed mother and the fact the wise men saw the Theotokos & Christ child (per Matthew 2:11) & worshipped Him is the most basic premise of illusration in the blessed icons. Forgive me for being too critical but this book seems to be a sham. This is not to say there are Protesant perspectives and critical analyses of Orthodoxy that lack integrity. For ex there is an extended one from an organization founded by Billy Graham which calls for the "need" to "evangelize" the Orthodox but does not denigrate the historical truth of the apostolic churches http://www.lausanne.org/pattaya-1980/lop-19.html So there are points of debate of varying quality obviously. Just my 2 cents from a general layperson.

It is a sham, but alot of people won't know that. Morey's crew may translate his book into Russian, Arabic, Greek, Serbian.......ect. Some protestant missionaries overseas will try to use it to convert Our people. They will use it to keep American seekers to Orthodoxy away from the Truth.

Let me share with you what has been shared with me. I know Origen was condemned as a heretic in the 6th century.....but he spoke something very true when he said:

Quote

quote:"Today, under the pretext of knowledge (gnosis -> he is talking about Gnosticism), heretics rise against the Church of Christ. They pile on their books of commentaries. They claim to interpret the gospel and apostolic texts. If we are silent and do not oppose them with true teaching, famished souls will be fed with their abominations."

Origen

The Protestants on this board may hate what I am about to say, but there is a stream of gnostic DNA in modern Protestant America. I saw this myself when I was a Protestant. In reading the early Fathers I have found out that my view of water Baptism was gnostic. Thus I was a neognostic. Now when I saw that.....I could of done one of two things. I could of denounced the fathers as being wrong and unbiblical......or I could of humbled myself and submited to the truth that I was wrong. Submitted to the truth that my group was wrong. The same is true for alot of American Protestants. The individualism of American Protestantism tends to blind. It tends to make the individual the standard of truth.

Everything gets warped/twisted when the individual is the standard of right and wrong. Now they won't admit that.....until their eyes are openned to see it. But everything is twisted.....from scripture to history......and it will continue to be so until one humbles themself and submits to the Ark. The Church.

I will try to deal with Billy Graham's organization after my Orthodox Phronema develops more.

And that may be years from now.

JNORM888

« Last Edit: March 18, 2008, 05:12:42 PM by jnorm888 »

Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

As far as I am aware I have never heard of Robert Morey, and I have certainly not read his book. Like others on this forum, I certainly recommend Robert Letham’s “Through western Eyes”. Both the material in it and the style in which it is written draw the reader in and inform him. Robert Morey may or may not be quite wrong in his perceptions (as I say, I haven’t read him), but let me make a few hopefully relevant comments nonetheless.

It is extremely difficult for us outsiders to Orthodoxy to discover what you really believe and practise. You may have read the book about the small American denomination which wanted to convert en masse to Orthodoxy, and how hard they found it even to get an interview, let alone be accepted.

I read Michael Harper’s book “The true Light” and wrote to his centre. I got no reply.

Several times I phoned the Orthodox bookshop here in Britain, and only got the answer-machine.

I asked a friend in Dallas to order some of Thomas Hopko’s writings and bring them to England for me when he came. Nothing ever arrived for him to bring.

I went (as I wrote in a previous posting) to the shop at Preveli monastery, and all they had to offer me was Peter Botsis: no Athanasius, no Chrysostom, not even Timothy Kallistos Ware – just Botsis. Now some of your postings tell me very definitely that you do not appreciate Ian Paisley: surely Peter Botsis is in some ways his Orthodox opposite number?

I had coffee with an Orthodox priest at a café, and he was kind enough to answer all my questions about names and words (for something I was writing). I liked him, and hope to take coffee with him again. But I could not get him to open up about spiritual things.

Only Timothy Kallistos Ware is easily available, providing people are aware of his writings.

The Orthodox Church does seem to have set itself up like an impenetrable fortress; at least, that is the perception I have developed – though some on this forum are more accessible and open, which is good and heartening. But what I am saying is, if we outsiders, including this Robert Morey, hold (and less excusably, purvey) distorted images of your belief and practice, to some extent it must be admitted that it is a situation you have yourselves brought about.

I hope my intention to write pacifically has been successful. I am attempting to be explanatory, not polemical.

Logged

"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15

The Orthodox Church does seem to have set itself up like an impenetrable fortress

I'm sorry that this has been your experience. For me, it's been the opposite, living here in the United States.

Logged

"as [you've] informed us that respect chills love, it is natural to conclude that all your pretty flights arise from your pampered sensibility; and that, vain of this fancied preeminence of organs, you foster every emotion till the fumes, mounting to your brain, dispel the sober suggestions of reason. It is not in this view surprising that when you should argue you become impassioned, and that reflection inflames your imagination instead of enlightening your understanding." - Mary Wollstonecraft

As far as I am aware I have never heard of Robert Morey, and I have certainly not read his book. Like others on this forum, I certainly recommend Robert Letham’s “Through western Eyes”. Both the material in it and the style in which it is written draw the reader in and inform him. Robert Morey may or may not be quite wrong in his perceptions (as I say, I haven’t read him), but let me make a few hopefully relevant comments nonetheless.

It is extremely difficult for us outsiders to Orthodoxy to discover what you really believe and practise. You may have read the book about the small American denomination which wanted to convert en masse to Orthodoxy, and how hard they found it even to get an interview, let alone be accepted.

I read Michael Harper’s book “The true Light” and wrote to his centre. I got no reply.

Several times I phoned the Orthodox bookshop here in Britain, and only got the answer-machine.

I asked a friend in Dallas to order some of Thomas Hopko’s writings and bring them to England for me when he came. Nothing ever arrived for him to bring.

I went (as I wrote in a previous posting) to the shop at Preveli monastery, and all they had to offer me was Peter Botsis: no Athanasius, no Chrysostom, not even Timothy Kallistos Ware – just Botsis. Now some of your postings tell me very definitely that you do not appreciate Ian Paisley: surely Peter Botsis is in some ways his Orthodox opposite number?

I had coffee with an Orthodox priest at a café, and he was kind enough to answer all my questions about names and words (for something I was writing). I liked him, and hope to take coffee with him again. But I could not get him to open up about spiritual things.

Only Timothy Kallistos Ware is easily available, providing people are aware of his writings.

The Orthodox Church does seem to have set itself up like an impenetrable fortress; at least, that is the perception I have developed – though some on this forum are more accessible and open, which is good and heartening. But what I am saying is, if we outsiders, including this Robert Morey, hold (and less excusably, purvey) distorted images of your belief and practice, to some extent it must be admitted that it is a situation you have yourselves brought about.

I hope my intention to write pacifically has been successful. I am attempting to be explanatory, not polemical.